At the intersection of physics and philosophy lies a profound question: What is time? What is existence?

From Einstein to Heidegger, from Turing to Satoshi Nakamoto, a stunning trend is emerging—

The meaning of existence must ultimately be judged by time.

I. Passing Time vs. Happening Time

Einstein’s theory of relativity is based on a key premise: the constancy of the speed of light and the uniformity of mass.

Thus, the “scientific time” he defined is measurable, reversible, and spatialized. It is homogeneous, like a uniformly unrolling rope.

Kant’s “philosophical time” is similar. He posited an “a priori form of time” to unify the empirical world, also assuming time to be homogeneous and universal.

However, this concept of time ignores the most essential aspect of human experience:

The “now” is not homogeneous—it is generative.

Bergson’s Temporal Revolution

Bergson divides time into two ontological levels:

• Passing Time: Events that have already occurred, have become definite, possess spatial attributes, and can be measured and analyzed;
• Happening Time: The present in formation, full of possibilities, irreversible, and generative.
  

Thus, the true “now” is not a measurable length, but a time with qualitative difference.

II. The Meaning of Existence: Heidegger and Satoshi’s Convergence

Heidegger pointed out: Only when we ask the question of “the meaning of being” does “being” itself become meaningful.

This means that what we truly care about is not the being (some object), but the being of the being—its generative and unfolding process.

This is technically embodied in Bitcoin’s Double Spending problem.

In Satoshi’s design, whether a transaction is valid is no longer a static judgment,

but a dynamic issue tightly connected to the unfolding of time.

Solving the double-spend problem requires an external proof of temporality—that is, the chain-based consensus produced by PoW.

This is not something a closed logical system can solve self-consistently—it is a self-referential paradox of existence.

And the resolution of this paradox precisely echoes the works of Turing and Prigogine.

III. Turing’s Transfinite Logic: From Formal Systems to Dissipative Structures

Gödel’s incompleteness theorem shows that within any sufficiently powerful formal system,

there are true propositions that cannot be proven within the system.

Turing proposed a breakthrough in his doctoral thesis. He constructed a type of ordinal logic system, introducing:

• Oracle Turing Machine: Facing undecidable problems, it introduces judgments from outside the system;
• Transfinite Iteration Structure: Continuously introducing new axioms, allowing the system to update itself again and again.
  

This updating is not merely a logical extension, but a transformation of the system’s very being.

After each iteration, the system is no longer what it was before.

It forms a sequence of “time to time,” a dissipative structure at the logical level.

Prigogine’s Perspective: Irreversible Time as the Ontology of Existence

Prigogine proposed the theory of dissipative structures in physics:

The evolution of the real world is not static equilibrium, but the constant breaking and restructuring within irreversible time.

He stated: “Time is not an illusion—time is the source of real order.”

Turing’s transfinite logic, Prigogine’s dissipative structures, and Bergson’s temporal intuition

all resonate on a deep structure of irreversible time + system updating + generative being.

IV. The Self-Referential Problem of Being: The Only Solution is Time

Gödel and Turing have already shown:

A self-referential system cannot resolve its own being within a closed logic.

But Bitcoin provides a grounded engineering solution:

• Whether a transaction is valid cannot be judged immediately within the system;
• It must rely on the unfolding of time and be “witnessed” on-chain through the irreversible PoW process;
• Therefore, time is the only witness.
  

This is a system handing over the judgment of its own existence—to time.

And this “time” is not Einstein’s spatialized time, nor Kant’s a priori time,

but the generative time of Bergson and Prigogine.

V. Conclusion: The Generative Logic of Being

Our lives, too, are a process of continuous self-updating:

• Every new insight is a breakthrough beyond prior cognitive boundaries;
• Every bit of growth happens through the accumulation and feedback of temporal experience;
• We are never a static self, but beings generated in irreversible time.
  

Just like Turing’s systems—every time we introduce a new axiom,

we are no longer who we were before.

Existence is not a static definition, but a process of updating through time.

Keywords Recap:

• Qualitative Difference in Time (Bergson)
• Irreversible Dissipative Structures (Prigogine)
• Self-Reference and Undecidability (Gödel, Turing)
• Transfinite Iteration & Oracle Machines (Turing)
• Decentralized Temporal Witness (Satoshi Nakamoto)
  

“We do not find ourselves in space—we become ourselves in time.”—To Turing, Bergson, Prigogine, and Satoshi Nakamoto